The ILP Forum Philosophy has been updated, please take a look to remind yourself of our noble aims and administrative practices.

Most of the changes were updating links and formatting, but one significant policy change is worth pointing out: the schedule of warning/banning has been updated:

1st warning: board warning, no further action2nd warning: 48 hour ban3rd warning: 7 day ban, with the possibility of a permanent ban based on moderator consensus.Any further warnings: permanent ban.

The previous version ramped up much more slowly, and never resulted in a permanent ban. This was hard for moderators because it meant issuing more warnings and keeping around disruptive users for longer. It was also unfair to users, since it made intervention feel arbitrary and uneven, and allowed disruption to proliferate.

Feel free to berate me about this change or any other grievance in this thread, or, if we're cool, carry on.

You have taken my right to read Autsider's and Ultimate Philosophy's comments. Essentially, you've murdered them.... and for what? Because they said something you didn't like? You can't ignore?

I don't agree with the banning philosophy and I find it morally equivalent to murder which should be reserved only for the most egregious and antagonistic violators of peace such that communication within the community is effectively halted until the person is taken out.

Be careful when fighting monsters that you don't become a monster - Nietzsche

I always am glad Carleas that your forum is a bastion of all different kinds of thoughts where you don't limit people's ability to express themselves. Keep up the good work.

The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.

Zero_Sum wrote:I always am glad Carleas that your forum is a bastion of all different kinds of thoughts where you don't limit people's ability to express themselves. Keep up the good work.

This, but without the sarcasm. Thanks for the time, energy and money you spend on this site, man!

"Your symbolical, lyrical and musical world can become an absolute standard. That is to say the highest on Earth." (Fixed Cross, "Re: A letter for the King" (return email to yours truly!), my translation.)kali maa jaap mantra {om aim hreem kleem chamundaye vichaye}"didja read that great wall of text he wrote? i'm tellin' you, ollie is the grand master of the esoteric and eclectic. if there IS something more to life, something extramundane or divine or whatever you wanna call it, ollie will figure it out" (Zoot Allures, to phoneutria, about yours truly.)

Zero_Sum wrote:I always am glad Carleas that your forum is a bastion of all different kinds of thoughts where you don't limit people's ability to express themselves. Keep up the good work.

This, but without the sarcasm. Thanks for the time, energy and money you spend on this site, man!

I know it's hard for people to discern when I am being sarcastic or not but that was actually me trying to be sincere. Shocking I know.

The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.

Zero_Sum wrote:I know it's hard for people to discern when I am being sarcastic or not but that was actually me trying to be sincere. Shocking I know. :wink:

That's good to hear. You keep up the good work too, then!

"Your symbolical, lyrical and musical world can become an absolute standard. That is to say the highest on Earth." (Fixed Cross, "Re: A letter for the King" (return email to yours truly!), my translation.)kali maa jaap mantra {om aim hreem kleem chamundaye vichaye}"didja read that great wall of text he wrote? i'm tellin' you, ollie is the grand master of the esoteric and eclectic. if there IS something more to life, something extramundane or divine or whatever you wanna call it, ollie will figure it out" (Zoot Allures, to phoneutria, about yours truly.)

Zero_Sum wrote:I know it's hard for people to discern when I am being sarcastic or not but that was actually me trying to be sincere. Shocking I know.

That's good to hear. You keep up the good work too, then!

I don't know if I should accept your post as it didn't sound sincere enough.

The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.

Yeah Carleas is a cool dude, but I didn't know he owned the place; I just thought he was a regular joe who was uncharacteristically fair in debate, which is the only reason I brought that to his attention. Now that's some genuine ass kissing But I stand by my words. We talked about that 6 months ago... banning is murder. Regardless how nice he is, how much money he spends, and how otherwise good this place is, it's still murder. It's eternally silencing someone. Nevermind the legal ramifications on whether my rights to other's speech has been infringed upon. How would the courts view this?

Someone was silenced for political expression in what can be considered a "town hall" since it's publicly available to the entire world and politics is the nature of the venue. Now if it were a private club that is not publicly viewable, then I'd see it differently.

Dan~ wrote:Please don't do that.Imagine if there were people at church, and you run in, open the door, and say "There is no god, retards!"

that is not how a civilized person would handle things.

If you want to make an argument about or against god, that is all well and good.But this is supposed to be a philosophy forum, not a monkey house.

To be fair, the church is sustained by the taxes of atheists too. But ok, I'll be nice.

There is no god, and these guys are not necessarily retards, though most probably they are.

If he had been simply asked to empathize, the situation probably could have been defused, but mods rarely moderate instead of escalate (although Dan did a good job of moderating the situation, but it didn't matter since Autsider was banned immediately after that post).

The temple mount will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and all the nations of the world will be ruled from there. All races, cultures, leaders, and nations will come to bow before the new messiah yet to come. All will come to know the chosen of God who refer themselves as Jews. For every Jew there will be a thousand goyim that will be their slaves as it was ordained by God. Every man, woman, and child will convert to Zionism.

Treating banning as murder is creative, but the implied syllogism doesn't work when it's spelled out. The moral dimension of murder is connected to the act as it is usually defined, the archetype of murder, and not to the word. If we redefine the word to include prohibiting someone from posting content to a particular website, we need to reevaluate what moral consequences it has, and there will be broad agreement that this redefined murder is not morally blameworthy as archetypal murder.

The legal question is yet more clear: the right of freedom of speech restricts government, and not private individuals. As a purely legal matter, ILP can ban someone for any reason or for no reason. Autsider and Trixie were banned for good reason, and we aspire to only ban people for speech-maximizing reasons unconnected to the views the user holds or express, but that is a standard to which we hold ourselves, and not one to which we are held by law.

Serendipper wrote:In my mind, censorship is akin to murder and there isn't much distinction between either method of silencing folks. We could censor black people by throwing them in rivers or censor white people by banishing them from the community. Either way, it's the same effect. If I get banned from here, how will anyone know I wasn't taken out and shot? The only difference is that I know better, but as far as the community is concerned, I may as well be dead.

_________________________________________________________

Carleas wrote:The moral dimension of murder is connected to the act as it is usually defined, the archetype of murder, and not to the word. If we redefine the word to include prohibiting someone from posting content to a particular website, we need to reevaluate what moral consequences it has, and there will be broad agreement that this redefined murder is not morally blameworthy as archetypal murder.

The person who was murdered is not the one who is being recompensed as they have no consciousness of anything; the one who is avenged is the community for the loss of the person. Therefore banishment is equivalent to murder from the perspective of the community and that's the only perspective that matters. Morality regards the community because a person cannot be immoral to their self. An offense against the community is an immoral act.

____________________________________________________________________

The legal question is yet more clear: the right of freedom of speech restricts government, and not private individuals.

The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.

In New Jersey, two lower courts had upheld the malls' contention that they could limit noncommercial activity on their private property. But today the State Supreme Court sided with the protesters who had argued that a mall constitutes a modern-day Main Street.

That's what this place is... a modern day main street / town hall. What you've created is a sounding board viewable to the public wherein you have the ability to censor what the public can view.

As a purely legal matter, ILP can ban someone for any reason or for no reason.

That's only because the issue hasn't been before the courts yet. What is law is a matter of opinion and persuasion of the judges, and, is not necessarily consistent with what is right. At one time it was perfectly legal to commit all sorts of heinous acts.

Autsider and Trixie were banned for good reason,

They expressed something that you didn't like. I mean, they weren't peddling penis pills.

and we aspire to only ban people for speech-maximizing reasons unconnected to the views the user holds or express,

How can speech-maximizing reasons be unconnected to expression of views? Makes no sense.

Most likely you're saying it's a popularity contest wherein the number of people offended by speech determines what speech is allowed such that if, for example, the board had a liberal bias by virtue of membership-number then bans would favor the conservatives. So if we recruit some white nationalists to tip the balance of the population in their favor, then you wouldn't have a problem with Autsider?

If you don't agree with Autsider, why would you not give a fool the opportunity to make a fool of himself? Do you think he's going to win people over with the suggestion of tossing people into ovens? When has prohibition ever succeeded?

Serindipper, think for a moment about why habitual offender laws exist. They do so for a reason.

Also, it's not murder to tell someone that they can't speak in a certain place. To say that it is, is without a doubt a significant stretch of any conventional definition of murder, and even a stretch as a metaphor. Murder is final, and prevents a person from being an agent in any way whatsoever, forever. To kick someone out of a bar is nothing like that at all.

You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

Serendipper, you are right, I did forget about Marsh, again. Pesky Marsh. But as I said last time, I don't think it's dispositive, and I think a web forum can be easily distinguished from a company town.

I found a more recent case that's more on point, e-Ventures v. Google, in which Google's delisting of a website for violation of its policies was held found to be protected by the First amendment. From the order granting summary judgement for Google:

Google’s actions in formulating rankings for its search engine and in determining whether certain websites are contrary to Google’s guidelines and thereby subject to removal are the same as decisions by a newspaper editor regarding which content to publish, which article belongs on the front page, and which article is unworthy of publication. The First Amendment protects these decisions, whether they are fair or unfair, or motivated by profit or altruism.

That seems pretty close to what's going on here, right? Granted, it's a district court case, but its matches other similar district court cases (see Zhang v. Baidu, Search King v. Google. Zhang is particularly noteworthy for not only upholding Baidu's right to filter search results, but their right to do so for overtly political reasons).

Serendipper wrote:How can speech-maximizing reasons be unconnected to expression of views?

First, note that "speech-maximizing" isn't about quantity. If, upon finishing this post, I copy and paste the text three or four times to increase the length, I haven't said anything more.

Next, note that certain forms of speech effectively silence other forms. The heckler's veto is the classic example: if I shout loudly enough, I can prevent you from expressing yourself. That is true regardless of the contents of my shouting.

In the context of a forum, there's no shouting, but there are manners of participation, unrelated to the ideas being expressed, that reduce the amount of speech that results from them. Since threads are conversations, posts shape what follows them, and participation in a thread that erodes the intellectual content of the conversation reduces the amount of speech the conversations contain.

These are the speech-maximizing reasons unconnected to the views the user holds or expresses. Regardless of viewpoint, we should seek to reduce participation that drags down conversation and replaces content with flames. Banning Autsider and Trixie did that.

Carleas wrote:Serendipper, you are right, I did forget about Marsh, again. Pesky Marsh. But as I said last time, I don't think it's dispositive, and I think a web forum can be easily distinguished from a company town.

In what way? It's public as anyone can signup. It's viewable to the public since it appears in search engines. It's political in nature.

Now maybe if this were a motorcycle board, it could be interpreted differently. Or maybe if membership were by invitation, it may be different. Or maybe if it were not visible on search engines, it may be different. Regardless of any court decisions made by political appointment with agenda, I fail to see the reasoning of how this site is not at least as public, if not more-so, than a company town.

I found a more recent case that's more on point, e-Ventures v. Google, in which Google's delisting of a website for violation of its policies was held found to be protected by the First amendment. From the order granting summary judgement for Google:

Google’s actions in formulating rankings for its search engine and in determining whether certain websites are contrary to Google’s guidelines and thereby subject to removal are the same as decisions by a newspaper editor regarding which content to publish, which article belongs on the front page, and which article is unworthy of publication. The First Amendment protects these decisions, whether they are fair or unfair, or motivated by profit or altruism.

That seems pretty close to what's going on here, right? Granted, it's a district court case, but its matches other similar district court cases (see Zhang v. Baidu, Search King v. Google. Zhang is particularly noteworthy for not only upholding Baidu's right to filter search results, but their right to do so for overtly political reasons).

I accept that, but the problem is the fairness doctrine is gone. Without the fairness doctrine, yes, it's perfectly legal for a newspaper to present a one-sided political view, but that doesn't mean it's fair or right. It just means that the judges were neutered in the google case and had no legal means to arrive at any other decision, unfortunately. What is right and fair is the basis on which I appeal to you.

The fairness doctrine:

Justice White also explains that it is the rights of the viewers and listeners that is the most important, not the rights of the broadcasters.The Court did not see how the Fairness Doctrine went against the First Amendments goal of creating an informed public.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_ ... _the_Court

Revocation:

In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8-0) the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In 1985, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In 1986, the 99th Congress directed the FCC to examine alternatives to the Fairness Doctrine and to submit a report to Congress on the subject.[16]

In August 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989, though the Court stated in their decision that they made "that determination without reaching the constitutional issue."[17] The FCC suggested in Syracuse Peace Council that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Reagan undermined an 8-0 supreme court decision because he was in favor of business over the people, which included his trickle-down nonsense. That's why google has grown into the monster that it is with its carte blanche ability to reshape society according to the perverted wishes of it's "progressive" controllers.

Serendipper wrote:How can speech-maximizing reasons be unconnected to expression of views?

First, note that "speech-maximizing" isn't about quantity. If, upon finishing this post, I copy and paste the text three or four times to increase the length, I haven't said anything more.

It still isn't clear what you mean by "speech-maximization." If you say you want more speech that isn't repetitive nonsense, then you cannot achieve than by constructing an echochamber. You need conflict in order to have discussion. You need Autsider. And you need me because without me, this discussion would not be happening. This is what is meant by "love your enemies." You need them in order for yourself to manifest.

Next, note that certain forms of speech effectively silence other forms. The heckler's veto is the classic example: if I shout loudly enough, I can prevent you from expressing yourself. That is true regardless of the contents of my shouting.

Shouting isn't a property of message boards and we can ignore whomever we choose. And there is a difference between purposeful disruption and expression of political view. If I'm posting meaningless crap just to take up space and disrupt the functioning of the board, then that force warrants force, but the expression of an opinion, vile or not, is not forceful.

In the context of a forum, there's no shouting, but there are manners of participation, unrelated to the ideas being expressed, that reduce the amount of speech that results from them. Since threads are conversations, posts shape what follows them, and participation in a thread that erodes the intellectual content of the conversation reduces the amount of speech the conversations contain.

I understand as well as anyone because I left for just such a reason, but it wasn't due to expression of an ideology, but expression of unethical refusal to admit a point and that is cheating. If someone wants to assert that jews should be tossed into ovens, then fine, let's talk about it, but when they clam-up and refuse to concede a point, then I want to leave. What matters is being reasonable and fair, not having an opinion.

Concerning manners of participation, it takes two to tango. Where Ultimate Philosophy was banned, UrGod was just as much at fault for being a provocation and it should be the job of a moderator to moderate the situation. UrGod got under my skin too, but I handled it differently. Why Ultimate Philosophy was so angry is something I wanted to observe longer, but I'm denied that opportunity because of the existence of UrGod and a banishment policy.

Regardless of viewpoint, we should seek to reduce participation that drags down conversation and replaces content with flames.

Why? Who leaves because of flames? And if they leave, then what does banning do differently? And who says flames do not have content? All you've accomplished is a personal satisfaction from having slaughtered someone who you didn't like, which, coincidentally and ironically, reduced the content of the board. Did not the Roman Colosseum draw crowds because of flames? People love to watch fights.

After you've selectively bred your echochamber, this place is going to be mighty boring lol

Mr Reasonable wrote:Serindipper, think for a moment about why habitual offender laws exist. They do so for a reason.

They don't exist in nature. If I habitually fall off a ladder, gravity will not increase the punishment.

Also, it's not murder to tell someone that they can't speak in a certain place.

I did not make that decree. It is murder to eternally banish someone.

Murder is final, and prevents a person from being an agent in any way whatsoever, forever.

Permaban. Hello

To kick someone out of a bar is nothing like that at all.

That isn't final. Plus, I could follow them to a new bar if I chose to. Plus, a bar is not a public sounding board for inherent political discussion that is viewable to the entire world.

Everything that exists exists in nature, so the first part literally makes no sense. Don't be acting fallacious. It's just tacky. Also, if you don't think that falling off a ladder repeatedly will lead to increasing discomfort, then I think you should fall off a ladder repeatedly and get back to me about it. Banning someone from a single website is also not final. Like bars, there are plenty of them. Getting kicked out of a bar does not remove the possibility that one could take their bullshit elsewhere, like say...another bar and continue on as they were. You've got to think about whether you're actually being reasonable here, or if you're just making a big stretch with a bunch of hyperbole to try and advocate for something that you feel strongly about. It's ok to have strong feelings and to advocate for them, but you're doing a shitty job of that here.

You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

Serendipper wrote:In what way? It's public as anyone can signup. It's viewable to the public since it appears in search engines. It's political in nature.

Sure, there are similarities, but there are also plenty of relevant differences. No one lives here. No one has their domicile at ILP. No one even works here. The court didn't even extend Marsh to shopping malls (Lloyd v. Tanner), the difference between a private town and private shopping center being sufficient to distinguish how the First Amendment applies.

The Fairness Doctrine applied to broadcast media, an industry heavily controlled by the federal government, which still owns all the airwaves and only licenses their use to private companies. Red Lion expressly relied on the limited availability of broadcast radio spectrum. The reasoning does not apply to the internet, and the Fairness Doctrine likely would not have been upheld in that context. It's trivially easy to make a competing forum if a user doesn't like the rules here or is banned, as evidenced by the fact that ILP has spun off a half dozen other forums started and frequented by disgruntled or banned members.

Nor did the court's ruling say that the government must or even should maintain the Fairness Doctrine, because that isn't the court's place. Rather, it held that the Fairness Doctrine was a permitted exception to the First Amendment in the context of broadcast radio.

Serendipper wrote:there is a difference between purposeful disruption and expression of political view. If I'm posting meaningless crap just to take up space and disrupt the functioning of the board, then that force warrants force

I agree, this is the same point that I have been making, and it is the reason why Autsider and Trixie were banned. Holding or advocating for distasteful views should not get a person banned, I agree, but neither does it get them a free pass to also post disruptively.

Mr Reasonable wrote:Serindipper, think for a moment about why habitual offender laws exist. They do so for a reason.

They don't exist in nature. If I habitually fall off a ladder, gravity will not increase the punishment.

Everything that exists exists in nature, so the first part literally makes no sense.

You're right that the distinction between the natural and artificial is an artificial distinction, but we've created for ourselves these distinct societies and communities by defining a distinction between what is natural and artificial; for instance, that Carleas and Autsider actually exist and that "right and "wrong" actually exist, which are manifested by "rules" that are complete abstractions. Therefore, within the confines of that universe, there is a distinction by definition.

If you want to argue that banning is a natural phenomenon, then I'll argue there are no rules in nature and therefore never a reason to be banned. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Don't be acting fallacious. It's just tacky.

Mr Unreasonable

Also, if you don't think that falling off a ladder repeatedly will lead to increasing discomfort,

Cause and effect are not the same. Increasing punishment is not the same as increasing discomfort due to equivalent punishment.

then I think you should fall off a ladder repeatedly and get back to me about it.

I think you should brush up on your logic

Banning someone from a single website is also not final.

Hey Carleas, did you know your ban is not final?

Like bars, there are plenty of them. Getting kicked out of a bar does not remove the possibility that one could take their bullshit elsewhere, like say...another bar and continue on as they were.

Fine. Kindly point me to where Autsider went and I'll go observe.

You've got to think about whether you're actually being reasonable here, or if you're just making a big stretch with a bunch of hyperbole to try and advocate for something that you feel strongly about. It's ok to have strong feelings and to advocate for them, but you're doing a shitty job of that here.

Serendipper wrote:In what way? It's public as anyone can signup. It's viewable to the public since it appears in search engines. It's political in nature.

Sure, there are similarities, but there are also plenty of relevant differences. No one lives here. No one has their domicile at ILP. No one even works here. The court didn't even extend Marsh to shopping malls (Lloyd v. Tanner), the difference between a private town and private shopping center being sufficient to distinguish how the First Amendment applies.

The Fairness Doctrine applied to broadcast media, an industry heavily controlled by the federal government, which still owns all the airwaves and only licenses their use to private companies. Red Lion expressly relied on the limited availability of broadcast radio spectrum. The reasoning does not apply to the internet, and the Fairness Doctrine likely would not have been upheld in that context. It's trivially easy to make a competing forum if a user doesn't like the rules here or is banned, as evidenced by the fact that ILP has spun off a half dozen other forums started and frequented by disgruntled or banned members.

Nor did the court's ruling say that the government must or even should maintain the Fairness Doctrine, because that isn't the court's place. Rather, it held that the Fairness Doctrine was a permitted exception to the First Amendment in the context of broadcast radio.

I will have to study and think on that before dispatching a reply, but...

Serendipper wrote:there is a difference between purposeful disruption and expression of political view. If I'm posting meaningless crap just to take up space and disrupt the functioning of the board, then that force warrants force

I agree, this is the same point that I have been making, and it is the reason why Autsider and Trixie were banned. Holding or advocating for distasteful views should not get a person banned, I agree, but neither does it get them a free pass to also post disruptively.

How were they being disruptive? Unless such evidence has been deleted, I've not seen what constitutes forceful disruption and that leaves only their expression of "distasteful views" to underpin "disruption".

For instance if I were to repetitively spam the board, somewhat like a ddos attack, that would be a forceful disruption. If my intention were to interfere with the functioning of the board, then that would be forceful disruption. But to simply state an opinion, that's not forceful since anyone can choose to ignore and disengage from that person.

In her analysis, Sophir writes that employers should be given “particular deference” in trying to enforce anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies, since these are tied to legal requirements. And employers have “a strong interest in promoting diversity” and cooperation across different groups of people. Because of this, “employers must be permitted to ‘nip in the bud’ the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a ‘hostile workplace,’” she writes. “Where an employee’s conduct significantly disrupts work processes, creates a hostile work environment, or constitutes racial or sexual discrimination or harassment, the Board has found it unprotected even if it involves concerted activities regarding working conditions.”

So who gets nipped? The ones offending or the ones taking offense? Ah, the ones who don't support the diversity narrative, I see.

Damore’s memo, titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” contended that Google’s diversity efforts were misplaced because they ignored women’s biologically driven disinterest in technology. It includes many claims, which have previously been dissected in detail online. But Sophir focuses specifically on Damore’s “statements about immutable traits linked to sex — such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution.” These statements were “discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding [Damore’s] effort to cloak [his] comments with ‘scientific’ references and analysis,” she writes. Moreover, she says Google “carefully tailored” its reasons for firing Damore, limiting them to unprotected portions of the memo.

Paraphrased as, "You're cloaking facts, er, I mean, comments with scientific references and analysis that trespass on our preconceived dogmas so you're fired!" Nevermind that google is cloaking the censorship of scientific analysis with "disruptive behavior". What's being disrupted is the pigeonholing of women into roles they don't want while denying men opportunities in order to cater to silicon valley's philosophical wetdream of transforming America into a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah where the metaphorical devil is bummed for lack of anything productive to do

Some legal experts suggested that Damore might have a solid legal complaint, if he could argue that he was discussing working conditions. But that apparently wasn’t a strong enough case for the NLRB — and Damore will be making an arguably tougher one in claiming that Google is systematically biased against white men.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai responded today to the firing of employee James Damore over his controversial memo on workplace diversity, stating that while he does not regret the decision, he regrets that people misunderstood it as a politically motivated event.

Hmm... where have I heard that before

Carleas wrote:Holding or advocating for distasteful views should not get a person banned, I agree, but neither does it get them a free pass to also post disruptively.

Oh yeah

You're a good sport, Carleas; a very fair-minded and well-intentioned individual whose demeanor should be a role model for everyone in debate.

Serendipper wrote:In what way? It's public as anyone can signup. It's viewable to the public since it appears in search engines. It's political in nature.

Sure, there are similarities, but there are also plenty of relevant differences. No one lives here. No one has their domicile at ILP. No one even works here.

Those are trivial differences that have no relevance to the publicity of the establishment. I suppose I should have asked "In what *meaningful* way?" But I didn't think I had to lol.

The court didn't even extend Marsh to shopping malls (Lloyd v. Tanner), the difference between a private town and private shopping center being sufficient to distinguish how the First Amendment applies.

Declaring that shopping malls have replaced the parks and squares that were "traditionally the home of free speech,"

And now that malls are vacant, social media is next... and in particular, this place.

And that takes us back to Marsh in that: the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

The Fairness Doctrine applied to broadcast media,

Difference? Aren't you broadcasting? Publicly?

an industry heavily controlled by the federal government,

Relevance?

which still owns all the airwaves and only licenses their use to private companies.

Who owns the internet? And why does it matter concerning the rights of speech? The audience is public, so ownership is beside the point.

Red Lion expressly relied on the limited availability of broadcast radio spectrum. The reasoning does not apply to the internet, and the Fairness Doctrine likely would not have been upheld in that context.

That's why it was struck down; because there was ample competition. The problem is obvious, as pointed out by Trump with his Fake News campaign in that ALL the media are biased... CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNBC, everyone except maybe Fox to some degree and the internet, which is involved in the same problem because google, twitter, facebook, et al are all just as biased as the mainstream media. So the competition-reasoning doesn't work since fairness is still absent and, through monopoly, the public is presented with a one-sided view.

It's trivially easy to make a competing forum if a user doesn't like the rules here or is banned, as evidenced by the fact that ILP has spun off a half dozen other forums started and frequented by disgruntled or banned members.

I'm not sure if it's trivially easy or not, since I've no clue how, but to arise to the popularity of twitter, youtube, and google isn't a matter of trivia, even though that doesn't apply to ILP, per se, but is a deeper resultant of the ethical slippery slope that begins with ILP.

Nor did the court's ruling say that the government must or even should maintain the Fairness Doctrine, because that isn't the court's place. Rather, it held that the Fairness Doctrine was a permitted exception to the First Amendment in the context of broadcast radio.

Well, yeah, the courts aren't legislators, but only interpreters of legislation. All they can do is work within the existing legislation, which is mutually exclusive from what is right/wrong, ethical/unethical.

What matters is the political nature of the site coupled with the accessibility to the public at large that differentiates it from a pub where you can boot people out for any reason you want because a pub is your own private establishment where the goings-on aren't plastered all over the internet under the guise of "philosophy" for added credence. Even a mall or a state park is less public than ILP. Even the public library is less public, for crying out loud Even prison inmates can come here, but not go to the library or a park. If any place in the universe is public, ILP is it.

I think it does make sense to leave up posts that led to banning. 1) this makes it clear what causes banning or gives concrete examples which may or may not be clear. It is transparent. We see what led to actions and justifications for the actions are clearer, at least. 2) It shows that we can tolerate information, if not certain kinds of behavior. We are adults. We have all seen____________shit. Fill in the blank for whatever upsets you - decadence, racism, threats, smut, insults........................We've all seen it. So having it visible is not a problem. Child porn, ok, remove it, fine. But text, leave it up. I suppose someone's IRL address and phone number type stuff should also be hidden. But otherwise, leave it up, perhaps in its own thread with other this led to banned posts. There are patterns of interaction that I can imagine wanting to ban. I don't mind someone throwing someone out of a library if they walk around repeatedly asking everyone if they can suck his dick.

How were they being disruptive? Unless such evidence has been deleted, I've not seen what constitutes forceful disruption and that leaves only their expression of "distasteful views" to underpin "disruption".

You don't think that personal insults directed at other posters are disruptive? As in this post :

AutSider wrote : There is no God to overthrow, retards.

Do people come to a philosophy forum to be insulted? They will put up with it for a while and then leave. The discussion ends because that sort of posting discourages participation. And really that's the goal of the insulter ... to silence others.

What matters is the political nature of the site coupled with the accessibility to the public at large that differentiates it from a pub where you can boot people out for any reason you want because a pub is your own private establishment where the goings-on aren't plastered all over the internet under the guise of "philosophy" for added credence.

So if you put a webcam into your pub and stream it to the internet, you automatically lose control over what happens inside your own establishment? You can no longer eject them for improper behavior? That seems strange. It looks like you are allowed to give a forum but you are not allowed to take it away, even if they break the rules and conditions under which you gave them a forum in the first place. Doesn't the participant/user have any responsibilities/obligations?